[Dejanh]

Originally Posted by GMAN

There is no good reason to show a dead soldier on the front page of a newspaper. I don't want to see any of our people die in a war, but better we fight there than here.

Fighting there doesnt have anything to do with here. Iraq especially. Afganistan we are loosing anyway.

Originally Posted by GMAN

Keep in mind that there are more people who die on the streets here than in this war.

So what, that's fine as long as its below the rate.
File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
These are figures on how many people died in the US in 2004(latest) by a weapon, around 8000 or so....
As long as we are below that figure than its fine i guess. We still have a ways to...

Originally Posted by GMAN

There are also more people who are killed in automobile accidents than have died in this war.

FARS Encyclopedia
Great then, over 34000 people died last year in automobile accidents. Man we have a ways to go there as well. Great analogy !!!

Originally Posted by GMAN

Some people don't think that we should not fight to defend our values or protect ourselves.

Our country is going broke and we cannot afford it anymore and i have given up MANY of my freedoms to this government because of this stupid wars. If my freedoms have been endangered then the terrorists have won. Iraq has nothing to do with my freedoms, Afganistan as well.

Originally Posted by GMAN

Whether you agree with this war or not we are there. It is our obligation to support our troops when they are fighting for us. And you cannot support the troops by opposing the war.

Excuse me, BUT, what does my support for troops have to do with me opposing or supporting a war. Maybe we should attack whoever we like as well, its justified as long as our troops are there huh?
Maybe if the government started attacking people here as well, we should support them anyways?

Originally Posted by GMAN

You either support our troops or the enemy. I choose to support our troops. There are some things worth fighting for. I have no doubt had we not taken the war to them that there would be fighting on our streets and car bombs exploding throughout our country. War is a dirty business. Most of us understand the demands and sacrifices made during a war. We don't need to see dead bodies on the cover of our newspapers or TV's. It only serves the opposition's agenda and is disrespectful of the soldier and their family.

BEST WAY TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IS TO MAKE THEM COME HERE. Those who were responsible for the attacks on this country are still on the loose, Bin Laden isnt even charged with the Sep11 attacks http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm , and even though we are there, it aint doing it no good over here, but i guess as long as our causality level is below the level of our automobile accidents we are all good.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95

Your argument that viewing these gruesome pics would cause fewer enlistment's is way wrong.

Immediately following 9/11, and I'm talking within DAYS, enlistment was up all over the country after we watched 3000 people die. If anything, it has the opposite effect because it angers people.

[LightsChromeHorsepower]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Immediately following 9/11, and I'm talking within DAYS, enlistment was up all over the country after we watched 3000 people die. If anything, it has the opposite effect because it angers people.

So then it's a good thing.

[LightsChromeHorsepower]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95

Lights, show me where it's your "right" to see a dead soldier's body like what the AP ran. Guarantee you will never find that "right" which you speak of because it does not exist. Just because these pics have been shown since the Civil War doesn't make it right morally or your "right" to see them. Your argument that viewing these gruesome pics would cause fewer enlistment's is way wrong. There are plenty of young men and women who will still sign up. The family asked that the photo not be made public and the AP ran it anyway. The family does have a right to privacy and the AP ignored it, that is a right that does exist.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance"

The press doesn't merely have the right to publish this information, in a truly free and just society it has an obligation to do so. If it's true it should get published.

Lots of people don't want lots of things published every day. The right and necessity of the public to have access to such information outweighs those wishes.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by LightsChromeHorsepower

So then it's a good thing.

No.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance"

Did Congress make a law saying these photos could not be published? Or was this a PRIVATE entity (the AP) that made the CHOICE to not honor the wishes of the family, and not publish the photo?

The press doesn't merely have the right to publish this information, in a truly free and just society it has an obligation to do so. If it's true it should get published.

That is the most ridiculous jump to a conclusion I've ever seen.

Lots of people don't want lots of things published every day. The right and necessity of the public to have access to such information outweighs those wishes.

The public has no right to see the dead body of a private citizen, nor does it have a necessity to see the dead body of a private citizen. If these were government photos, you would have a basis for this argument. But they aren't.

[dobry4u]

The public has no right to see the dead body of a private citizen, nor does it have a necessity to see the dead body of a private citizen. If these were government photos, you would have a basis for this argument. But they aren't.

Apparently you left off the word US (US private citizen), as I have seen plenty of Holocaust and Hiroshima and other such war graphics to embed the horrific events in my mind forever.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by dobry4u

Apparently you left off the word US (US private citizen), as I have seen plenty of Holocaust and Hiroshima and other such war graphics to embed the horrific events in my mind forever.

Unless they were taken by the government, we have no right to see them. The AP had a right to publish the photo - that isn't the point. The point is that they ignored the wishes of the family for no good reason.

[dobry4u]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Unless they were taken by the government, we have no right to see them. The AP had a right to publish the photo - that isn't the point. The point is that they ignored the wishes of the family for no good reason.

I understand what you are saying, that the AP went against the wishes of the family and it was very disrespectful.

But when you start saying "rights" it takes away from the point above. We have the right to free speech , which is protected by the highest from of Law to this country, the United States Constitution. We have a right to see things from the government through the Freedom of Information Act. The AP had the right to publish the pictures protected by the US Constitution in the fact that it is free from censorship or limitations. The AP published the picture within that "right".

The point of the OP, and over all debate was, I believe the fact the family asked them not to be published. Perhaps the AP is in error with the moral obligation bestowed upon them by the soldiers family. But the AP was within the rights of freedom of speech.

We have the right to read/see what we wish, if it is published under the Freedom of Speech.

[dobry4u]

I believe, Rev, you are saying that we do not have the moral right to see those pictures but to deny their publication is censorship.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by dobry4u

I understand what you are saying, that the AP went against the wishes of the family and it was very disrespectful.

But when you start saying "rights" it takes away from the point above. We have the right to free speech , which is protected by the highest from of Law to this country, the United States Constitution. We have a right to see things from the government through the Freedom of Information Act. The AP had the right to publish the pictures protected by the US Constitution in the fact that it is free from censorship or limitations. The AP published the picture within that "right".

The point of the OP, and over all debate was, I believe the fact the family asked them not to be published. Perhaps the AP is in error with the moral obligation bestowed upon them by the soldiers family. But the AP was within the rights of freedom of speech.

We have the right to read/see what we wish, if it is published under the Freedom of Speech.

I used the word because LCH made the claim that we had a right and an obligation to see the picture. No such right exists. Had the AP chose to do the morally correct thing and respect the family's wishes, LCH would have no right to see the picture, and the AP would have no obligation to publish it.

They should have respected the family and self-censored.